Skip to main content

About your Search

20121121
20121129
STATION
MSNBCW 35
CNNW 21
CURRENT 12
CSPAN 10
FBC 9
CSPAN2 5
CNBC 3
KNTV (NBC) 2
KQED (PBS) 2
KGO (ABC) 1
KQEH (PBS) 1
KRCB (PBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 114
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 114 (some duplicates have been removed)
that we do need long term -- deficit reduction -- that is important to america's credibility. it is important for america's economy and economic growth. that plan has to be balanced, and that means significant revenues and that paying has to go around. that means the wealthy and well- off have to pay their fair share as well. these should not be new issues. they are ones that were debated. they came up in every debate -- even the foreign policy debate. the american people are on the side of the president and democrats who are making this case. that is not to say that there should not be spending as part as this debate. there has been over $1 trillion in spending cuts. that is a part of this debate that gets lost. just because washington has a short memory does not mean we should all have one and that there has already been sacrifice on behalf of the american people through those domestic discretionary cuts. we are excited. c.a.p. has been a lot of work on the fiscal cliff. we have talked about medicare savings that can improve and strengthen the program and address rising nat
to solve the deficit standoff, people should listen to this guy. plouffe said this is going to get hairy? >> we want to engage in comprehensive tax reform. we also need to engage in entitlement reform. you know? medicare, medicaid carefully, these are chief drivers of our deficit. we made a lot of progress with obama care and there's other spending we have to cut. >> hold on a second. i think we all know what the chief drivers of our deficit are and have been. our projected deficit over the next seven years is driven mostly by the wars in iraq and afghanistan and the bush tax cuts. entitlement programs don't even compete with these costs. plouffe went on to pin the problem largely on republicans who are not flexible on higher tax rates, but he also said this. >> and so where i think the big bottleneck right now is republicans in congress on revenue and how much and where does it come from. democrats are also going to have to step up here and do some tough things. and you know, the notion that somehow that these deficits and our debt are not a threat to our national security and our econo
to the deficit, they say, and it needs to be part of the deficit. the opposing view of durban says social security is not in a crisis. back to our question for our viewers. how would you fix your school system? david in kansas, an educator, republican line. caller: i just want to say i am an educator. i'm not republican. i would make education a completely free market good. i would get rid of compulsory school attendance. --would get rid of taxation a i think you need a wall that separates the government and education, just like we have a separation between government and religion. host: ok. june in wisconsin, independent. caller: hi. you know, the baby boomers got the last excellent, well-rounded public-school education. it was based on the basics -- proper english, writing. for whatever reason, somebody decided -- and i saw a teacher wrote an article on why we have to write all these rules in english, such as "i before e" in english. i thought, are you kidding me? for some reason somebody said, "whatever you think it is, and johnny." it's ridiculous. there's nothing wrong with people un
, don't worry as much about the deficit, the revenues will come in, and we have to get rid of the social safety net the way it's been, and cut spending, slash spending dramatically. it was very divided policywise and barack obama won pretty handily. >> a week after the election john boehner, speaker boehner, does a press statement and he says we're not going to raise revenues. we should look at loopholes and deductions. >> one thing that hasn't changed and you can put on as many senate republicans as you want looking reasonable. what hasn't changed is the tea party caucus in the house. they've lost a few members, but they're still a majority and john boehner has to find some way to get something past them. that's why i doubt there will be a christmastime deal. i think the president is going to have to let these tax cuts end and then boehner may have a chance of convincing them to pass tax cuts for the bottom 98% without the top 2%. >> do you agree with that, dr. peterson? that the president will be forced to allow these to run their course simply so that republicans in the house won't ha
? >> well, first of all, i do believe the middle class has a stake and a good, solid balanced, deficit reduction plan. the plan should be what the president campaigned on, namely balance. that means we've got to have a substantial contribution from revenues. the revenues have to come from the folks who have been making good money during the recession. that's folks over $250,000 or some number close to. that the pentagon's got to make a contribution and if there is anything on healthcare, it's gotta be about reforming it, bringing the costs down, not cutting benefits. >> eliot: let's drill down a couple of pieces of this. what do you think the underlying ratio should be between cost cutting and revenue generation. last summer it was 10 to 1 in terms of cutting costs to revenue. thankfully the deal didn't get done. should it be one-to-one? where would you like to see this happen? >> you know, i actually don't know that number because i think the question is i think we need about a trillion and a half from revenues and the
, that is .5 percent of the deficit. we cannot get there, get the deficit down without significant cuts in spending. >>neil: the election has consequences and you could argue that a key premise of the president's re-election was i will raise taxes on the rich and he is likely entitled to that, he will likely see that but it is all the other things they are leveraging with democrats do not touch entitlements and putting everything on table it remind me of george bush sr. he agreed to reverse the pledge oh ride -- "read my lips, no new taxes." but the democrats never offered correspondenting spend cuts. we know what happened to him. what happens to those who agree do in the republican party? >>guest: the republican party has to stand for economic growth and it has to stand for the principle that keeping tax rates low and reforming the tax system is the way to grow the economy. i disagree slightly with rand paul. i am in favor of closing loopholes. i hate them. i call them termites in the tax system but we should use that money to credit a first-class world class tax system that stops expo
on the table a proposal that reduces the deficit by $4 trillion, that does so in a balanced way, that includes substantial cuts to discretionary non-defense spending, over $1 trillion, it includes revenue and includes $340 billion in savings from our health care entitlement programs. >> fairly unequivocal, isn't it? it's a mixture of pretty substantial spending cuts and tax increases. >> we haven't seen the plan. i haven't seen the plan. i don't think the speaker -- >> are you accusing the president of lying? is the president lying? >> where is the plan? >> is he lying? >> i don't think the plan's out there. i think jay carney might be but i don't see the plan. maybe they have a plan. >> jay carney is lying and he's the white house spokesman. >> no. >> they're lying, are they? >> i'm not saying that. piers, maybe they've got -- >> you just did. you just called him a liar. >> they haven't shared the plan with the american people. paul ryan and the republicans in congress have passed twice now and last year -- excuse me, two years ago as well, a ten year plan for a budget that deals with the ten
when people first signed that pledge, the federal budget deficit was $220 billion. this year, $1.1 trillion, how can you say nothing has changed? >> lots have changed. bush focused not on spending. the pledge only does certain things. the pledge makes tax increases more difficult at the state level, at the national level. you haven't had a republican vote for income tax since 1990 when bush threw away his presidency. 1993 tax increase, only on democratic votes. then no tax increases until 2009 when obama came in and raised taxes with obamacare. >> isn't this -- you are having republican is take a difficult pledge to cut taxes, isn't that like a quarterback saying they like taxes? >> it's a pledge not to increase taxes. people say why don't you toughen it. you don't want to change it because it is a simple guardrail. it doesn't solve the world's problems, it says no net tax increase. >> in your mind when someone signs it, how long are they committed to it? >> in writing when the person signs it as long as you are a congressman or senator. >> you are signing this for life? >> unles
the deadlines we're facing on taxes and deficits. these deadlines are going to be coming up very soon in the coming weeks. but today's important because i want to make sure everybody understands this debate is not just about numbers. it's a set of major decisions that are going to affect millions of families all across this country in very significant ways. and their voices, the voices of the american people, have to be part of this debate. and so i asked some friends of mine here to join me, some folks from here in the area. our ultimate goal is an agreement that gets our long-term deficit under control in a way that is fair and balanced. that kind of agreement would be good for our businesses, it would be good for our economy, it would be good for our children's future. and i believe that both parties can agree on a framework that does that in the coming weeks. in fact, my hope is to get this done before christmas. but -- the place where we already have in theory at least complete agreement, right now, is on middle-class taxes. and as i've said before, we have two choices. if congre
, the deficit reduction first. you have to pay the bills. in your personal and public life -- you want to have a prescription drug benefits under medicare, that is great, you have to pay for it. you want two wars? you have to pay for them, too. we should understand something about the republican party over the last and years. it has been a big spending party -- it just does not want to pay for any of the spending. a reset of traditional conservatism requires that we be reality-based on the fiscal condition of the country and understand that the years of profligacy now require increased revenue. the notion that we have hundreds of members of congress bound by a pledge to grover norquist as opposed to their oath of office to the constitution -- [applause] is unsettling. we should understand, there is not symmetry between the parties on this question. there is no grover norquist equivalent in the democratic party on this question. it is encouraging to hear speaker boehner and republicans talk about the need to increase revenues. my personal opinion, which is why i am a republican in part, a 40% f
's translate that. according to the congressional budget office, falling off the cliff would cut the deficit but stop economic recovery in its tracks. now presidents in both parties usually try to put money in people's pocketses to stimulate the economy. president bush sent taxpayers a refund check while obama has cut payroll taxes. p falling off the cliff is a reversal of that approach. that's why the cbo estimates economic growth would drop under 1% to just .5%. and unemployment could jump over a point to 9.1%. heather, we know the costs, we understand this game because the republicans have been playing it for a while. do you think anything has shifted post-election in way that will actually get a deal done? >> i think what's really come to roost for conservatives has been the fact they were pushing a vision for our economy that included basically just this, except for the tax increases, right. they said starting in 2010, the deficit is the most important thing, it's the most important thing, and now, they're basically faced with immediate deficit reduction and realize, oh, this is actuall
out of the deficit crisis just by cutting, cutting cutting and we all will have to raise taxes. >> eliot: of all the permutations that you've heard of the ideas being floated around, is there any deal that is likely to be agreed upon that you can vote for at this point ifin time. >> to be very honest, eliot i get a little bit nervous. i get nervous that instead of bringing back the old clinton era tax rates for the wealthyiest people 39.6, there may an way to wiggle out of that, i get nervous when i hear the president and others continue to talk about quote/unquote entitlement reform, which i'm afraid is just another word for cuts in medicare and medicaid, and maybe even social security. you know, in the first two negotiations in 2010 and 2011, the congress cut $900 billion in programs for working people. the wealthy did not contribute one nickel toward deficit reduction. i think now is the time where the democrats and the president have got to stand firm and say excuse me, the middle class is hurting in this terrible recession. the number of people who are in poverty is at an
over the next ten years. that's about 40% of the $4 trillion deficit goal that we have. that's the same thing that simpson-bowles had, 40% revenue. so the only way you can reach that, incidentally, is to allow the rates to go up. just this idea of we're going to take a look at the tax code, change some credits and deductions, you can't come up with enough money. >> so any deal will have to include at least some hike in the tax rate. >> i don't think there's any other way to approach it. that's why the president has taken this position. if we're going to make sure, for example, that we spare families making $250,000 a year or less from any income tax increase, then this idea that we're going to go into the tax code and find $1.6 trillion over ten years becomes almost impossible. we need to protect those middle income families. >> you said today that congress should deal with the fiscal cliff crisis now, but tackle entitlements, the entitlement questions, later. yesterday, senator lamar alexander said the only thing the president has to do to get an agreement from republicans now is in hi
said the deficit and the state of american society. that is exactly right. you can look at questions of the budget and questions of infrastructure and immigration policy but above all education policy because this is the future and we are not talking about physical infrastructure but human infrastructure and joel is someone who has dedicated the most recent phase of his multi phase currier to this and when he is not discovering the best restaurants in brooklyn he is focused on improving a lot of young people in this country. so let me tell you how condi is dedicated to this issue. year-and-a-half i called her up and asked her to do something for me and with me. she said i'm too -- don't even go there. we have bet on many football games. before the end of this conversation you are going to agree to what is going to happen and she said no way. we at the council of foreign relations spend our time working on things like china, mexico, all the judicial foreign policy issues and we've moved our agenda and increasingly focusing on things domestic and what we want to do is a report on educa
negotiated deficit reduction changes. it includes expiration of the bush era tax cuts that would effect everyone. expiration of the tax cut around for years can be called a tax increase. the nonpartisan budget office would bring in $1 trillion in ten years. on tap, 1.2 trillion in spending cuts for ten years. $100 billion in first year. half to defense programs. half to nondefense. cbo says going off the cliff would lead to a recession next year. we have fox team coverage tonight. ed henry is trying to read tea leaves on a day of mixed signals from all sides but we begin with mike emanuel on the possibility that g.o.p. lawmakers may put their oath of office above a promise to antitax increase organizer. good evening. >> good evening. the republican sources say they are offering a balanced approach of significant spending cuts and some revenue without boosting tax rates. >> we have been responsible as we remain firm on this point. no tax increases now for promised spending cuts that won't materialize later. the american people have seen that game before. they won't be fooled again. >> th
. it is still about three times the average deficit under bush. let us go back to the clinton tax era. eileen anywhere between republican and libertarian. up -- yes i am not. i lean anywhere between republican and a libertarian. host: what do you make of republicans up on capitol hill -- to sort of a back off the tax pledge that he took when he ran for senate, saying he would not raise taxes. caller: if we are going to raise taxes my important thing is raising them on everybody. because if they try to strike a compromise where only the rich get taxed, then it gets more progressive. it is not a point to help the budget. we are right to raise taxes, raise them all the way down to where clinton had them. host: senators lindsey gramm represented peter king, talking publicly abandoning the pledge of democrats will talk seriously about entitlement reforms. rest in peace, grover norquist? there are not enough republican tax hikes -- republicans to hike taxes for obama. the left is doing its best to make tax hikes appear to be a foregone conclusion. that is their take on tax hikes. eddie, on our line
drug plan that a lot of these republicans voted for, not funded. you have a deficit thattic vides a trillion -- that exceeds a trillion dollars. i don't think any republicans will say what the hell let's just raise taxes because barack obama says so. neil: they are running with tails between leg. >> look at the electeds. >> look, bottom line, i don't like pledges of any kind, you have to be pragmatic in washington both sides, democrats should not make pledges either, they need to come to the table. neil: you don't have to worry, they will not. what is going on on the whole tax thing, and whole norquist thing? main were saying that -- today saying, that this is really about the imploying of grover norquist, he took afence to that in my interview earlier, but that is what is going on, probably more more than that, what do you say? >> first, i ca i have to addrest julie said, almost someone who lives inside of beltway could say that a pledge does not matter, this is a promise, they said while they serve in congress, not a short-term team, they made a promise, where i come from thee,
puts forward his plan. how is he going to close the other part of that deficit? you know, his proposal right now, the most he can say would raise would be about $68 billion when our deficit last year was $90 billion. what is the president's plan for closing the additional additional $1 trillion worth of deficit? i think that's incumbent on the president to put forward his plan. >> from your standpoint alone, there's no way you see fit in the coming 35 days that you would break that pledge with glove norquist. >> well, thomas, let's use a couple numbers here. even with this measly economic growth we've seen the last three years, revenue at the federal government has increased $344 billion per year. if we just return to a normal economy that returns about 18.5%, that would increase revenue an additional over $400 billion per year, that's $750 billion of revenue per year through economic growth. and the president, his proposal would raise 1/10 of that but would put at risk the economic growth and that $750 billion. so -- >> sir, with all due respect, though -- >> counterproductive. >> tha
a long-term deficit reduction deal. grover norquist was on cnn on friday responding to senator chambliss' comments. let's listen to what grover norquist had to say. [video clip] >> the commitment he made to the people of georgia was not to me. it was a commitment to the people of georgia that he would go to washington to reduce government spending and to reform government and not raise taxes. if he wants to change his mind and become a tax increaser so we don't have to reform government, need to have that conversation with the people of georgia. he talks about my plan to increase debt, the only plan i think i supported is the paul ryan deal, which reduces the deficit, pays down the debt, does not raise taxes, and it is a written plan that senator chambliss actually voted for. so i think they caught him on a tv station and he said something scraps that did not make sense. >> have you thought about changing the pledged in any way? >> again, i cannot change the pledge, because t it is,o me. it is not like people are promising this to me. >> it was your group. everybody associates the pledge
" and he joins me now. thanks for being with us now. we appreciate it. you compare the deficit to an insurance policy. you say it doesn't make you any richer in the short-term, but in the long-term, it is helpful. i want to actually put your statements up. you say let's agree to keep deficits very high for at least another year. and then let's buy an insurance policy against that debt crisis when we can really afford it. so lots of republicans and democrats out there would disagree greatly with you. say that america's ability to pay its debt is really important. how would you respond to them? >> right. i do think that there's a thing that's taken place in washington deficit reduction will stimulate us to enormous growth in 2013. the fact is what deficit reduction is, is tax increases and spending cuts, both of which take economic activity out of the economy. so this really is extremely similar to insurance. if i buy, say, flood insurance. what i'm doing is i'm paying a short premium in the short-term, to protect my house in the long-term. that's exactly what deficit reduction i
box and reduce the deficit, they spent it. he has no savings in his budget. he wants to count savings because he is not in iraq anymore. they threw him out. that is why he is not in iraq anymore. connell: we will obviously come back to this over and over again. grover norquist, thank you. dagen: we will stay on the topic of warren buffett and taxes. should the cut off the $500,000 not $250,000 as the president wants. would that ease some of the burden and pain of higher taxes? >> on one level it would, of course. raising that threshold from $250,000 to $500,000. the buffet idea maybe release a little bit of pain, but does nothing to address the extortions that he is talking about. huge distortions. 160,000 pages of distortions in the tax code. you were talking about a tiny, tiny improvement. i will take it, sure. we are getting distracted on this one. dagen: connell was talking about a minimum tax on the wealthy. he starts out $1 billion a year. 30%. a good idea in the abstract? then he starts talking about his brother in. those are multi billionaires, dude. >> i mean, i think these a
it and they are very, very, very loathed to break it. and that's made it impossible to reach a deficit reduction deal, until now. "the new york times" has an article in which republican after republican after republican goes on the record by name dismissing his pledge and his power. peter king says a pledge is good at the time you sign it. in 1941 i would have voted to declare war on japan. but each congress is a new congress and you can't have a rule that you're never going to raise or lower taxes. i don't want to rule anything out. senator of georgia said, i'm frankly not concerned about the norquist pledge. senator john mccain said fewer and fewer people are signing this "pledge." it's actually a pledge, but any way. senator coburn called it "a tortured vision of tax purity." and it did you want end there in that article. bill crystal said this. >> let's have a serious debate. don't scream and yell when one person says, it won't kill the country if we raise taxes on millionaires. i don't understand why republicans don't take obama's offer. >> a calmist at the national review wrote, as a matter of
will not increase the federal deficit. they said it will reduce it slightly. ten years slightly and 20 years significantly. it's complete bs to say that this has any deficit implications. it doesn't. this is just a smoke screen. it's a red herring. it's another excuse for not doing what needs to be done. the american people have spoken. the central issue in the campaign was not only tax fairness but raising taxes on the top 2% as a means to help us balance -- get rid of the deficit and eat into the debt. and the american people have said, yes, that's one of the components of the deal. so this is just another smoke screen. it's a delaying tactic. i truly believe that if they keep this up they will pay for it and they will pay for it big time, certainly in the election of 2014. but the sad part is, the nation and people can't wait. we've got to resolve this debt because if we do so, rev, will cause the economy to explode. we will see a resurge in investment, good things happening for the economy. >> congressman ellison, with all of that at stake and clear from every expert that we've heard, it
're saying is we don't want to cut the deficit too fast. now when it comes to the fiscal deficit -- >> i want to transition you to the other hot topic that we've been following. it's senator john mccain and his stance or lack thereof now against ambassador susan rice. let me play what he said earlier. i believe it was november 14th and his new line of words, i guess, regarding her possible nomination for secretary of state. let me play it back to back. >> we will do whatever's necessary to block the nomination that's within our power as far as susan rice is concerned. >> she could conceivably get your voros for secretary of state? >> i think she deserves the ability and opportunity to explain herself and her position. >> lois, what's the scoop there there and what's behind this change? >> i think that john mccain is a very, very smart politician, and, you know, a smart politician doesn't want to box in the opponent like he tried to do with president clinton so that president clinton runs out and nominates her. i think everybody needed to kind of cool off a little bit and if he backs off, the
to the voters that mitt romney did not. obviously, mitt romney had a huge deficit with african-american voters, hispanic voters and women voters, so i think these potential candidates are trying to map it out. >> david corn, when george w. bush ran, he got such a quick surge in the polls that no one was able to stop him. is jeb bush that guy this time? is he the one that if he makes it clear he's running, others will decide not to? >> you know, i still wonder if two words come to mind. too soon. i mean, the george w. bush presidency is still not held in high esteem amongst many voters who still blame bush for the economic downturn at the end of his administration that has carried us to this day. jeb bush has the ability to talk to hispanic, more moderate, but i also wonder if you know, people will be a little tired of the bush dynasty come to 2016. >> well, they're too tired of it now, but 2016 is a few years away. thank you both for joining me tonight. >>> coming up, good news for democrats trying to keep control of the senate in 2014 and one republican whose strategy for dealing with latino
. >> how do we move our country forward and reduce the deficit? by creating jobs and growing our economy, not by cutting programs that families rely on most. for working families it's all about putting americans back to work. not cutting the things we rely on most. >> there are signals they can't accept the kind of entitlement reforms in medicare and social security that senator graham is saying are prerequisite to a deal. >> let me tell you, first, george, and you know this, social security does not add one penny to our debt. not a penny. it's a separate funded operation. and we can do things and i believe we should now, smaller things, played out over the long term that gives its solvency. medicare is another story. only 12 years of solvency lie ahead if we do nothing. those who say don't touch it, don't change it are ignoring the obvious. we want medicare to be there for today's seniors and tomorrow, as well. we don't want to go to the poll and voucherizing it and we can make meaningful reforms without compromising the integrity of the program, making sure that the beneficiaries are n
senator pat toomey from pennsylvania. he was a member of the deficit reduction super committee last year that failed to agree on a plan. but he's been talking about this issue for a long, long time. good morning, senator. >> good morning. >> we just learned that president obama will be traveling to your backyard on friday to talk about the fiscal cliff and spending, and traveling to pennsylvania right now. is this a welcome visit as far as you're earned? >> as far as i'm concerned the president of the united states is always welcome in my state of pennsylvania. we welcome the president and look forward to his message, and i have some questions i'd like to-ish i hope he addresses. >> what questions? >> first of all the president seems absolutely determined to inflict a tax increase on the american people. two years ago he signed a bill that extended the current tax rates for two more years because he said the last thing you want to do is raise taxes in a weak economy. today the economy is weaker than it was two years ago. why in the world does he want to inflict that damage now? >> senato
and be on the group with a group of bipartisan business leaders and deficit hawks getting something done, meeting with republicans and democrats. do you have any more optimism let me point out you and your pal erskine bowles, he was quoted as saying he's more pessimistic something will be accomplished. >> my poor dear partner, bloodied but unvowed, six months ago erskine was saying i think we can get there. now, he's pessimistic. would be a word. we were just with a group go big or go home, democrats and republicans alike, they've got signatures of over 200 -- 102 house members, half of the senate working for us, equally divided on both sides, you have to have something bipartisan. you can write it on a single sheet of paper if it had firewalls and triggers, and if it were just signed by an equal number of democrats and republicans, the markets would lay off of us. if they continue to see this dead-head struggling, the same old stuff, they're going to punish us. when they do the guy that will get hurt is the little guy, middle class, inflation, interest rates, that's who gets hammered. what an ir
budget deficits could remove road blocks to growth. on the other hand, going over the cliff might mean a recession. on top of that, worries about a deal were already causing trouble. > uncertainty about how the fiscal cliff, the raising of the debt limit, and the longer-term budget situation will be addressed appears already to be affecting private spending and investment decisions, and may be contributing to an increased sense of caution in financial markets. >> susie: wall street and business leaders were pleased that bernanke was talking tough. and they said the fed's role in the fiscal cliff negotiations is to communicate. >> tell the world and the individuals in the political establishment that they have to help get their act together or we have a problem, and that notion of preaching from the pulpit that he has is very fundamental. >> susie: is there another role or more of a role for the fed? >> i think to be a cheerleader and to be on the sidelines telling the government they have to do what is right for the public. >> susie: as for what the fed can do if the u.s. heads into re
which means lowering tax rates not necessarily deficit reduction. it is the same policy romney had. it is where they were before the election. they gotta wake up and see the election, change things and they actually have to meet democrats somewhere in the middle. >> bill: i would hope. i would hope. new york times this morning, front page of the business section in terms of closing loopholes, romney was never specific about which one. new york times is saying that they know -- now we know one of the ones they're targeting. the headline is a tax break once sacred is now seen as vulnerable. what they're talking about is the mortgage interest deduction. there was no doubt it is on the table. it is one they're targeting rather than raise tax rates on the wealthy, they're going to either limit or get rid of the mortgage interest deduction. which is the most popular one. >> the most popular one. politically difficult i think. that's really the problem with romney's entire approach that said we'll just create revenue
deficit right now. it is the bridge to renewable energy, renewable energy will take a long time. if we can move to gas we get tremendous benefits in terms of cleaner energy on the way to renewable energy future. if we could get those things done, steve, this would be transformational for our economy but we have not been able to act on these things even though i said earlier there is wide bipartisan -- >> thank you. let me just try to poke holes in this. if we rollback time to just before the financial crisis you look at the u.s. deposition. douglas holtz-eakin was out there talking about that already. and john mccain and others have been but it is much worse today but if you look at the deck in a different way, look at private sector debt, the fact, forget government debt. before the financial crisis private-sector debt was 160% of gdp in the united states and despite averaging, back to 160% of gdp we are still in crisis mode, you had structural corruption between regulators and financial institutions and any place in the economy and a private sector event that led to a government response
debtor deficit spending, or where spending cuts of any type might come or how we are going to address the larger issue: we all know that tax hikes on the rich ain't going to get it down. progressive groups reportedly held a private meeting with senior obama administration white house officials. according to the "washington post" the groups were told not to worry about any entitlement reforms or big budget cuts. the so-called safety net programs according to them are not going to be touched and the progressive groups walked away feeling very happy. the report say the white house feels it does not need to compromise, period and is willing to let the big tax hike happen on everybody. the big tax hike is what everybody will face not just the rich or the middle class. they think they'll be in a better position to negotiate with the g.o.p. after that happens. chris stirewalt joins me, host of power play on foxnews.com. >> i was a little frightened, i thought something i, really bad was happening instead of the standard badness. megyn: that is terrifying. [laughter] back down to business, t
.m. majority whip dick durbin will talk about the so-called fiscal cliff and deficit reduction at the center for american progress. fiscal cliff, a combination of those expiring tax provisions and budget cuts that could take place the beginning of the new you. they include the bush-era tax cuts and sequestration. live coverage starts at 1130 eastern also on c-span. we are likely to about the fiscal cliff during the senate session today getting underway at 10 a.m. eastern, just over a half hour from now. after the gavel and majority leader reid will be recognized to speak and will likely outlined the schedule for the day which could include debate on defense programs and policy, and possibly legislation to do with equal rights, people with disabilities. centers will us from 12:30-2:15 eastern for weeks the party meetings. live coverage of the senate and members gavel in right here on c-span2. right now some debate from the floor of the senate yesterday between majority leader reid and republican leader mitch mcconnell. d, w they talkede about potentialit't changes to filibuster rules. here's
krugman sounded a different note today in the "times" and is talking about this idea that cutting deficits is a number one priority. he writes supposedly any day now investors will lose faith in america's ability to come to grips with its budgets failures. when they do there will be a run on treasury bonds, interest will spike and the u.s. economy will plunge back into recession. this sounds plausible to many people because it's roughly speaking what happened to greece but we're not greece. he's saying while this is a real dynamic for some countries, it is not because of the way we fund ourselves, is that right, ben? >> that's right. i would say morning munnize not actually by given name. >> i didn't know that. >> he's right, we're not greece, we're a much larger economy. we can grow our way out of debts and deficits. we've got a ginormous economy. we had a huge black friday weekend. probably $600 billion for the total shopping over the holidays. the question is, as we get close and getting into december, if it looks like talks are breaking down and we have the same old lines on no tax inc
to reduce the long-term deficit, that requires a combination of cuts. it also means asking high income individuals to pay a little bit more. that was a key issue in the campaign. all the exit polls show the american people are on the president's side. the only people who appear to be totally deaf to that are some of the congressional leaders in the republican house and senate. so i think it's important that the president get out and talk to the american people. this is part of the national conversation. this is a very important moment, and so it's important even as the president talks to congressional leaders and he had them down to the white house and continues to be in contact with them, he should engage the american public in this very important national conversation. >> let me ask you, you have a couple of senate republicans who have come out again grover norquist and any kind of notion of a pledge or being held to a lobbyist as opposed to the american people. on the left you have some progressives who are concerned that too many concessions will be made with social security, medic
and your party come to this debate with big deficit because you and president bush and dick cheney lied this country into war and you had a lot of lies on foreign policy about wmds. president bush even said once in may 2003 that we found the wmds in iraq. dick cheney and condoleezza rice talked about links to al qaeda in iraq. you've never made up for those huge, serious, significant lies in the arena of foreign policy. and now you're picking apart, you know, basically the very early and ultimately not misleading with regard to foreign policy decisions, statements that this diplomat made. >> one thing we're learning right now the meeting with ambassador rice and senator corker is happening as we speak so a little earlier than that noontime appointment. but the one thing we heard also from senator barrasso in the last hour was john considerry's name floated out and it would be easier for him to sail through. you had the opportunity to work with john kerry before. >> sure. >> when we hear about this, is that really what the game, as joy-ann said, this machiavellian game, basically let's g
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 114 (some duplicates have been removed)